Don't worry - these sort of mood swings obviously serve some evolutionary purpose.. there *are* good medications available (gin or rum for starters...), but no doubt the IDiots will hit you below the belt again soon and bring it all back to square one.

About the only immediately noticeable difference between the two is the color gradient of the overall scene. The Expelled knock-off has a slightly shifted viewing angle and a depth of field effect in the background, but that's about it in terms of stylistic differences. Denial, as they say, is not just a river in Egypt...

"Yes, posting leading questions with flawed premises will tend to provoke that kind of reaction."

Canned answer number six. I'm impressed.

It just seems reasonable that those who are opposed to the message this movie delivers would be more effective illustrating that opposition after the general public has had a chance to see it, and not before. Otherwise you come across as obstructionist, or arrogant elitist labeling the 'un-enlightened' as so many sheep.

See, there you go, anon, dutifully spouting the "science is oppressive towards other ideas" meme that Expelled is selling.

In point of fact, those of us in the pro-science camp have been addressing the specific claims the movie makes, point by point. The Expelled Exposed website offers a detailed critique, as does Dawkins' own review. This isn't about trying to shut down the thing before people have had a chance to see it. It's just making sure that the facts are out there to counter the propangandist lies. On principle, none of us has an objection to someone making an ID movie. What we object to is an exercise in rank cinematic slander, which whines about scientific "thought police" while at the same time never once seeing fit to present a scientific argument in favor of ID. And the whole link between science and Hitler is simply too morally offensive for words.

As for waiting until after the movie is out, rather than before, to counter its falsehoods, consider this: If you knew there was someone out there getting ready to spread a lie around that you were, say, a mass murderer or child molester, wouldn't you want to counter that sort of thing before it ended up spread all over the world, or only after?

I do not see this as a valid comparison, as legally, there would be little or nothing I could do to this person until after the lie was told.

I also said nothing about science being oppressive.

As for the movie, you and others commenting (I followed Martin's link) have the advantage of having seen the movie where I and most others have not. What you are asking me to do, as much as any movie critic posting a negative review, is accept your word that the film sucks and I should therefore refuse to go see it. You may disagree, and that is fine, but this does reek of an agenda.

I am not ignorant when it comes to evolutionary science. Therefore, I will make you a proposal. I will see the film, compare notes, and then happily return here and let you know if you are correct.

Won't bother me a bit if you are, I would simply rather find out on my own.

I do not see this as a valid comparison, as legally, there would be little or nothing I could do to this person until after the lie was told.

I was making a general statement for illustrative purposes, regarding principles.

I also said nothing about science being oppressive.

Maybe not, but the movie is certainly pounding that theme with a sledgehammer.

As for the movie, you and others commenting (I followed Martin's link) have the advantage of having seen the movie where I and most others have not. What you are asking me to do, as much as any movie critic posting a negative review, is accept your word that the film sucks and I should therefore refuse to go see it. You may disagree, and that is fine, but this does reek of an agenda.

You misunderstand. No one is telling you to refuse to see the film. Those of us who object to the movie only want you to be forearmed with the knowledge, if you do choose to see it, that it is full of falsehoods. In any movie review, you will get critics who think the movie sucks and those who like it, and it's up to you to make your decision to go or not go based on whose reviews you think are persuasive, or none of them at all. In this case, we have a movie that purports to be a documentary, but which makes false claims and has a history of dishonesty on the part of its producers. We just think you should know that.

(For the record, I have not seen the film, only the 5 minute online clip. I am basing my views on what I saw on that clip, as well as reviews I've read by sources I trust as to the credibility of its overall content. No one is saying you should trust those sources too, only that you know there are criticisms out there concerning the film's veracity.)

I am not ignorant when it comes to evolutionary science. Therefore, I will make you a proposal. I will see the film, compare notes, and then happily return here and let you know if you are correct.

Won't bother me a bit if you are, I would simply rather find out on my own.

While I can't vouch for the statement's veracity, ISTR reading somewhere that TARD could stand for The Argument Regarding Design. But it might have been off some bathroom wall or other. Perhaps the vowel is distorted. YMMV. For external use only. Please read instructions carefully.